Protest Decisions

September 12, 1996

VIA UP OVERNIGHT

Janice Corriea

September 12, 1996

Page 1

Janice Corriea

9630 La Nuez Drive

Elk Grove, CA 95624

Cliff Webb, Secretary-Treasurer

Teamsters Local Union 150

7120 East Parkway

Sacramento, CA 95823

R. Q. Helm

9024 El Cajon #4

Sacramento, CA 95826

Janice Corriea

September 12, 1996

Page 1

Re:  Election Office Case No. P-930-LU150-CSF

Gentlepersons:

Janice Corriea, a member of Local Union 856, filed this protest pursuant to Article XIV, Section 2(b) of the Rules for the 1995-1996 IBT International Union Delegate and Officer Election (“Rules”) against R. Q. Helm, a member of  Local Union 150.  The protester, a clerical employee of Local Union 150, alleges that her “right to openly support” candidates for “International Office” was violated when Mr. Helm threatened to take pictures of a personal bulletin board placed on the wall of her office where she has posted campaign literature and paraphernalia in support of James P. Hoffa.  Ms. Corriea further alleges that Mr. Helm’s conduct toward her was harassment because he had no legitimate reason to photograph her bulletin board. 

Mr. Helm admits that he intended to photograph Mr. Corriea’s personal bulletin board but maintains that, once he was refused access, he did not enter her office area.

The protest was investigated by Regional Coordinator Mathew D. Ross.

Janice Corriea

September 12, 1996

Page 1

Most of the evidence is undisputed.  The protester supports Mr. Hoffa in the race for general president.  Her desk is located in an area behind the dues window in the building in which Local Union 150 maintains its offices.  Above her desk is an aluminum-framed cork bulletin board.  On this board, Ms. Corriea has posted pictures of her children as well as other personal items.  A Hoffa button, a Hoffa calendar and various other literature supporting

Mr. Hoffa’s candidacy for general president is also exhibited on this board.  A co-worker displays Hoffa campaign materials on a bulletin board of the same size and type near her desk. 

Jake Workman, a Local Union 150 business agent, confirmed that the protester maintains campaign materials relating to Mr. Hoffa on a bulletin board in her office area.  Earlier this year, Mr. Workman complained to Local Union 150’s Executive Board that Ms. Corriea had posted anti-Carey leaflets on the wall near her desk, in addition to the material posted on her bulletin board.  Subsequent to his complaint, the campaign materials posted on the wall were taken down.

On September 3, 1996, Mr. Helm entered the hall and paid his dues at the window.  He then asked Ms. Corriea if he could take a picture of the inside of her office.   Ms. Corriea observed a camera in Mr. Helm’s possession.  He admits that he brought the camera for the specific purpose of photographing the protester’s office area.  The protester asked Mr. Helm why he wanted the picture.  He did not give a reason and repeated his request.   She told Mr. Helm that he would have to obtain permission to take the picture from Cliff Webb, secretary-treasurer of Local Union 150.

To these undisputed facts, Ms. Corriea adds that, in her view, Mr. Helm’s request was “strange.”  She states that Mr. Helm made no effort to speak with Mr. Webb, but remained in the lobby area waiting to be signed onto a hiring list.  While he was waiting, the protester spoke with her office manager, who told Mr. Helm that he was free to take pictures of “local union business” but could not photograph the protester’s bulletin board.  Ms. Corriea added that if Mr. Helm persisted in his attempt to take the photograph, she would file “charges.”  According to the protester, Mr. Helms then stated, “I guess you are going to have to file those charges because I’m going to take those pictures.”

The protester further states that she felt “intimidated” by this event.  Noting that

Mr. Helm’s height exceeded hers by approximately 9 inches, she stated that he stood over her desk.  She feared that “Helm would come through the door” to take the pictures.  Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 11(b), “[A]ll Union officers and employees, if members, retain the right to participate in campaign activities.”  However, such campaigning “must not involve the expenditure of Union funds.”

Article VIII, Section 11(c) of the Rules provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

Union funds, facilities, equipment, stationery, personnel, etc. may not be used to assist in campaigning, unless the Union is reimbursed at fair market value for such assistance, and unless all candidates are provided equal access to such assistance and are notified in advance, in writing, of the availability of such assistance. 

Janice Corriea

September 12, 1996

Page 1

The Election Officer has prohibited the use of union resources in campaigning even when such use is isolated or slight.  In Olson, P-172-LU70-CSF (November 1, 1995), the Election Officer found that the use of a union telephone for three telephone calls of short duration to assist in campaigning during work time, “even when such activity is not consequential in terms of time,” violates the provisions in the Rules barring use of union facilities and equipment to assist in campaigning. See also Hoffa, P-865-IBT-MGN

(August 26, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. 232 (KC) (September 6, 1996).  The Election Officer found in Yeakel, P-256-LU773-PNJ (January 4, 1996), aff’d, 96 - Elec. App. - 57 (KC) (January 23, 1996), that a union officer who had been a vocal supporter of Mr. Hoffa unlawfully used union resources by posting a picture of her rival candidate for delegate standing with Mr. Hoffa on the wall of her union office.  In Yeakel, P-762-LU773-PNJ

(June 5, 1996), the Election Officer barred a personal display of campaign hats in the union office.  See also Miller, P-504-LU147-MOI (April 23, 1996) (violation where local union made its office available to a campaign as the location to pick up a raffle prize).

The Election Officer has interpreted Article VIII, Section 11(c) of the Rules to indicate that the display of campaign-related material in private offices on union premises is an impermissible use of union facilities for campaigning and a violation of the Rules.

Ms. Corriea initially based her charge of retaliation on her belief that Mr. Helm’s actions had no legitimate purpose.  During the investigation, she expanded her grounds to include the difference in their respective heights and because Mr. Helm stood over her desk.  At no time did she state that she was physically threatened.  Article VIII, Section 11(f) of the Rules provides: 

Retaliation or threat of retaliation by the International Union, any subordinate body, any member of the IBT, any employer or other person or entity against a Union member, officer or employee for exercising any right guaranteed by this or any other Article of the Rules is prohibited.

Article VIII, Section 11(f) is violated when members engage in physically or verbally aggressive behavior that threatens actual harm.  Passo, P-469-LU705-CHI et seq. (February 29, 1996) (finding intent to provoke physical confrontation to violate Rules), aff’d in relevant part, 96 - Elec. App. - 124 (KC) (March 13, 1996); Lopez, P-456-LU743-CHI (April 10, 1996) (finding “I’ll kill you” to violate Rules in light of ongoing animosity between parties); Smith,

P-600-LU150-CSF (April 30, 1996) (finding remark “you’ll be taken out of here in a body bag” to violate Rules); Kelly, P-600-LU705-CHI et seq. (March 27, 1991) (finding aggressive threat to “kick their ass” made in menacing manner to be harassment in violation of Rules).  However, even a “heated” discussion involving IBT members or the mere “physical presence” of one member in relation to another does not violate the Rules.  Dunn, P-110-LU25-BOS (July 28, 1995), aff’d, 95 - Elec. App. - 8 (KC) (August 21, 1995) (local union president did not violate Rules by following, hovering near, and blocking the path of campaigning member.)

Ms. Corriea has the right, pursuant to the Rules, at Article VIII, Section 11(b),  to participate in campaign activities.  To sustain a charge under Article VIII, Section 11(f), however, there must be evidence which expressly or inferentially connects the conduct which is alleged to be improper to activity protected by the Rules.  Giacumbo, P-100-IBT-PNJ

Janice Corriea

September 12, 1996

Page 1

(October 13, 1995).   While the protester’s display of campaign material in her private office is not protected under the Rules, her right to support the candidate of her choice is.

Nevertheless, the Election Officer concludes that, on this record,  Mr. Helm’s actions do not warrant the conclusion that the Rules, at Article VIII, Section 11(f), were violated.  Based on the Regional Coordinator’s observations, the Election Officer credits Ms. Corriea’s report of these events.[1]  But Mr. Helms’s conduct was not aggressive or violent, nor did he threaten aggression or violence in any way.

Although no protest was filed concerning Ms. Corriea’s improper use of union resources to campaign, Article XIV, Section 4 of the Rules empowers the Election Officer to order remedies whenever, “as a result of . . . any investigation undertaken . . . with or without a protest,” she determines that such action is appropriate.  Hoffa, P-812-IBT-NYC (August 16, 1996); Shanahan, Case No. P-397-LU317-PGH (February 6, 1996), aff’d,

96 - Elec. App. - 91 (February 20, 1996). 

Having found that Ms. Corriea’s personal display of campaign literature violates the Rules, at Article VIII, Section 11(c), the Election Officer directs as follows:

1.  Ms. Corriea and any other employees of Local Union 150 are ordered to cease and desist from campaigning by exhibiting personal displays of campaign material in her office area.

2.  Within five (5) days of the receipt of this decision, Local Union 150 is ordered to post the attached Notice on all of bulletin boards located in the offices of Local Union 150.

3.  Within two (2) days of posting the Notice, Local Union 150 is directed to submit to the Election Officer an affidavit describing in detail its compliance with the Election Officer’s orders requiring it to post the attached Notice.

An order of the Election Officer, unless otherwise stayed, takes immediate effect against a party found to be in violation of the Rules.  In Re: Lopez, 96 - Elec. App. - 73 (KC) (February 13, 1996).

Any interested party not satisfied with this determination may request a hearing before the Election Appeals Master within one day of receipt of this letter.  The parties are reminded that, absent extraordinary circumstances, no party may rely upon evidence that was not

Janice Corriea

September 12, 1996

Page 1

presented to the Office of the Election Officer in any such appeal.  Requests for a hearing shall be made in writing and shall be served on:

Kenneth Conboy, Esq.

Latham & Watkins

885 Third Avenue, Suite 1000

New York, NY 10022

Fax (212) 751-4864

Copies of the request for hearing must be served on the parties listed above as well as upon the Election Officer, 400 N. Capitol Street, Suite 855, Washington, DC 20001, Facsimile

(202) 624-3525.  A copy of the protest must accompany the request for a hearing.

Sincerely,

Barbara Zack Quindel

Election Officer

cc:               Kenneth Conboy, Election Appeals Master

Mathew D. Ross, Regional Coordinator

              NOTICE TO LOCAL UNION 150 MEMBERS

Employees of local unions may not maintain private or personal displays of campaign material in their office areas.

All violations of the Rules pertaining to the contribution of union resources to a candidate or a campaign shall be promptly investigated and appropriately remedied.  Any member believing that a violation of the Rules has been committed may file a protest with the Election Officer at 400 N. Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 855, Washington, D.C. 20001; telephone (202) 624-3500; facsimile (202) 624-3525.

_________________________

Barbara Zack Quindel

Election Officer

This is an official notice which must remain posted for 30 consecutive days and must not be defaced or altered in any manner or be covered with any other material.